I'm starting this thread to outline how sharia law is effecting various countries.

Before you read through the posts, or post your comments, please understand:

1. Our Constitution provides for Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Religion.
Tolerance to different religions & tolerance to speech are expected from all citizens.

2. These posts are in no way here to defame any particular religion, rather outline the dangers posed to our free society by Extreme Fundamentalists and what they are preaching. These posts are for you to understand what the NATO forces are up against. Only by understanding our enemy's thought & work process can we target victory.

3. Nothing, I'm posting here, is taken out of context, rather exactly as it is preached by the radicals.
To quote myself, from one of my posts in another thread: "To any normal person, these teachings would seem to be ramping banter of madmen, but to a brainwashed terrorist, these are motivational learnings."

4. I expect everyone to use moderation as per their better judgement.

Finally in regards to my posts on another thread on mosque at ground zero, hopefully these posts, can provide a better understanding as to how we feel, and what we fear, that, that mosque might be used as a victory symbol by the extremists. Anything you may want to say about the mosque near ground zero, please refer to this thread: Mosque at Ground Zero? Plan angers NY

Christianity, the foundation of American law, teaches that husbands are to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Elsewhere, husbands are told, "[L]ive with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7).

In other words, Christianity teaches a husband to treat his wife with honor, respect and restraint, and never to use his superior physical strength to impose his will on his wife, who is his full equal in worth, value and dignity.

Not so in Islam, where husbands are explicitly taught that they may beat their wives into submission.

Now comes news of a disgruntled Muslim husband in New Jersey who repeatedly raped his wife, despite her tearful resistance.

This, in classic Islamic fashion, was an arranged marriage. She was 17 at the time of the wedding in 2008, and had never even met the man before they got married.

The woman was told by her husband every time non-consensual sex took place, "This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you."

The man forced himself on his wife one last time before later on that same day taking her to the home of a local imam where he verbally divorced her.

Now get this. The American judge dismissed the woman's charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that her husband should not be punished for spousal rape because Islam permits it.

Said the judge, "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

The judge then refused to issue a restraining order against the man, leaving the woman vulnerable to repeated rape attempts with no legal protection of any kind.

This ruling, it should be noted, was reversed on appeal. But it is astonishing and revealing that an American judge would vacate an American law on the grounds that Shariah law had supremacy. Yet that is exactly what happened.

Bottom line: Shariah law is not coming, it's already here, right here in the United States.

Remember that at the same time Elana Kagan kicked military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law, she welcomed Muslim recruiters to campus who were looking for top talent to help implement Shariah-compliant financing.

So Ms. Kagan was unwilling to use Harvard Law to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, but was perfectly willing to use it to advance Shariah law. And she soon will be sitting on the highest court in the land. God help us.

Four Christians were arrested outside an Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan several weeks ago. Their crime? Handing out free copies of the gospel of John on public property. Although they were doing so peaceably and under the protection of the First Amendment, it mattered not to Dearborn police, who hauled them off to jail anyway.

So it is now illegal, just as Shariah law requires, to share the gospel of Christ in Dearborn, Michigan, just like it is illegal in Saudi Arabia and virtually every other Islamic nation in the world.

And don't forget that it is the explicit goal of Islam to impose Shariah law on the entire United States.

It cannot be stated too often or too loudly that Islam is flatly incompatible with American values. It is impossible for a devout Muslim to be a good citizen of the United States or any other nation formed and shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

We are committing cultural suicide by allowing unrestrained Islamic immigration into our country, and that cultural suicide is now being aided and abetted by mind-numbed and clueless judges, including a soon-to-be justice of the United States Supreme Court.

I continue to maintain that it is catastrophic folly to grant any Muslim citizenship in the United States. And I submit that a judge who justifies rape on Islamic grounds simply makes my case.

Bronx, NY - The lead terror suspect in last year's alleged plot to bomb synagogues in the Bronx claimed he wanted to shoot President Bush "700 times" and repeatedly called Osama Bin Laden "my brother," according to transcripts of FBI recordings filed in federal court Tuesday. Full article

Bronx, NY - The lead terror suspect in last year's alleged plot to bomb synagogues in the Bronx claimed he wanted to shoot President Bush "700 times" and repeatedly called Osama Bin Laden "my brother," according to transcripts of FBI recordings filed in federal court Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors said James Cromitie approached the FBI informant claiming "I want to do something to America" adding "With no hesitation I will kill 10 Yahudis [Jews], and I'll have to think 20,000 times before I kill one Muslim. You understand?"

Cromitie was charged last May with recruiting three others to try to carry out attacks on Jewish temples in the Riverdale section of the Bronx as well as plotting to shoot down airplanes at Stewart Air base in Newburgh.

The four men have pleaded not guilty and defense lawyers have claimed the group was set up by an FBI informant. The defense last month asked a federal judge to dismiss the charges alleging misconduct by the informant and his government handlers.

Prosecutors filed their response to the defense motion stating Cromitie along with suspects David Williams, Onta Williams and LaGueerre Payen acted on their own. "These four defendants actually showed up and placed what they believed to be Improvised Explosive Devices in front of a synagogue and a Jewish Community Center," prosecutors said.

Investigators said the three other suspects were not known to the FBI informant when Cromitie allegedly recruited them for the plot. Prosecutors called Cromitie a "hate-filled, virulent anti-Semite who wanted to commit attacks against Jews and the United States ..." who claimed it was "for a cause, not just because."

NBCNewYork broke the story of the alleged plot back on May 19. The suspects are charged with conspiracy to use a weapon on mass destruction, conspiracy to kill U.S. military officers and conspiracy to acquire anti-aircraft missiles.

Investigators said Cromitie first met the informant on June 13, 2008 and spoke of his family in Afghanistan. Cromitie allegedly said he wanted to strike at the U.S. because of American military involvement there.

"If the Muslims was to want the United States down, they can do it. With the regular Muslims here, all somebody has to do is give a good Fatwa [religious edict] to the brothers and make sure that they understand. They are taking down our Islamic countries ... So, we start taking something down here" he said according to a wiretap transcript.

Last month, defense lawyers claimed the FBI informant had offered $250,000 to Cromitie to help in the plot. Court papers identified the informant as Shaheed Hussain who had claimed to be a member of a terror group from Pakistan. If not for the offer of cash, defense lawyers claim the men never would have gotten caught in the FBI's sting.

A spokesman for U.S. attorney Preet Bharara declined to comment on the court filings. Cromitie's lawyer Vincent Brecetti did not immediately return a call.

"Do you know who I will kill with this gun?" a little boy says into the video camera, waving his toy pistol.

"Who will you kill with this gun?" the cameraman asks.

"The infidels."

The scene appears in a new video by the al-Qaeda-linked Al-Shabab that shows the Somali militant group indoctrinating children, some of whom appear to be toddlers.

Among those seen in the 28-minute video urging the children to fight and become "martyrs" is a former Toronto resident, Omar Hammami, alias Abu Mansour the American.

The video, distributed on the Internet this week by Al-Shabab's propaganda arm, shows a "children's fair" hosted by Al-Shabab leaders. The boys and girls, identified as the children of "martyrs," are given balloons and snacks and rewarded with toy guns for correctly identifying the late leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, from a picture.

"What brought us together today is the blood of the martyrs," Mr. Hammami tells the children, according to a translation by the SITE Intelligence Group. "So on the necks of the attendants today rests the responsibility of blood. Each of us should assume a part of this responsibility.

"As men, we have to continue the fighting started by those heroes. We have to abide by the principles for which those heroes were martyred. They honoured the responsibility on them."

Mr. Hammami then urges their mothers, who appear to be seated at the back of the room, to encourage the children to "learn military sciences" and tells the kids they "have to work hard and try to be like their hero fathers who were martyred in this path."

The children are later shown holding their plastic guns while waving black Al-Shabab flags in a pose reminiscent of terrorist videos. One child crawls prone on the floor with his rifle while another grimaces and aims his toy AK-47 at the camera.

"We are horrified by these images and by the exploitation of these very young Somali children by senior leaders of the Al-Shabab terrorist group," said Ahmed Hussen, president of the Canadian Somali Congress.

"The central role played by Omar Hammami in the recruitment of these very young children to Al-Shabab proves to us that foreign extremists will stop at nothing to bring further misery to Somalia," he said.

"We hope that this video will unmask the true nature of the Al-Shabab and make Somalis everywhere realize the fact that this group has never cared about the welfare of Somalis despite its rhetoric of doing so."

Al-Shabab is a Taliban-like armed extremist group that is fighting to overthrow Somalia's United Nations-backed government. It is notorious for its suicide bombings and assassinations of government officials, activists and journalists.

Ottawa outlawed Al-Shabab last month due to concerns it was attempting to radicalize and recruit young Somali Canadians. Federal security officials are investigating six Toronto youths who allegedly joined Al-Shabab last year. One of them, Mohamed Elmi Ibrahim, a University of Toronto student, has reportedly died.

Al-Shabab has attracted recruits from Canada, Europe, Australia and the United States. Mr. Hammami is an Alabama-born American Muslim who moved to Toronto in 2005 and married a Canadian Somali. The following year, he travelled to Somalia to join Al-Shabab.

In its annual report to Parliament on Wednesday, Canada's intelligence service described Somalia as a "magnet for international terrorists" who have converged in the African nation to create a Taliban-like state.

It also warned that Canadians who travel there to participate in the conflict "may be drawn into global jihad circles, where they are subsequently recruited to carry out attacks against perceived enemies of Islam."

The RCMP and FBI have said they are concerned that Canadian and U.S. recruits could return from Al-Shabab's camps to conduct terrorist attacks in North America. The CSIS report called the Somali conflict "a direct threat to Canadian and international security."

Tuesday, 13 May 2008 â€˜Jihadâ€™ is extracted from the source, â€˜Jaahadaâ€™ and it measured upon the fourth verb structure, which means interaction between two sides, al-Mufaâ€™ala. Another example is â€˜Al-Khisaamâ€™ which means to quarrel and is extracted from its roots source â€“ Khaasama. Also, there is the example of â€˜Jidaalâ€™, which means to discuss or to argue and is taken from the root source â€˜Jaadalaâ€™.

In the tongue of the Arabs, al-Jihad means, â€˜exerting ability and effort to do an action or express opinionsâ€™.

In Al-Munjid, the words Jaahada, Mujaahada and Jihadan means, â€˜exerting effort and ability to push the other awayâ€™. In the Tafseer of al-Naysaboori it is clearly stated that â€˜al-Jihadâ€™ means to exert effort to achieve the objective or what is intended.

After all of these related definitions of the word â€˜al-Jihadâ€™ in the language, it is possible to give a clear linguistic definition, which is: â€˜al-Jihad is the exerting of all effort and ability between two sides by the least.â€™

Based on the linguistic definition, the exerted effort could be via material weapons or without a weapon, with money or without money. Also it could be the struggle between two opposing desires exerting effort (Jihad) to overcome the other. It could also be by words and could be by refusing to do an action or to speak. An example of this is like the one who disobeys his parents when they order him to disobey Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) and the person becomes patient and perseveres when his parents insist in ordering him. And it is like the one who abstains from committing a haram desire when his nafs calls him to it. This is what is mentioned in Hashiyat Al-Jamal in al-Jalalayn: â€œJihad is to have patience on difficulties. It could be during war and it could be inside the nafs.â€

Based on this linguistic definition, the opponent that the Muslim engages Jihad against could be his own nafs, or the shaiytan, or the transgressor or the kuffar. Additionally, by this definition, Jihad could also be that which is in the way of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) â€˜Fi Sabeel Lillahâ€™â€™. So the Jihad could be undertaken to please Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) or to please the shaiytan, like the Jihad of the Kuffar against others. Al-Naysaboori, wrote, â€œIt is exerting effort to achieve the objective or what is intended regardless of the nature of the objective intended by the one who is exerting the effort.â€ The Quran used the word â€˜Jihadâ€™ in describing the activity of the kaafir fathers to make their believing children reject true belief. Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says:

â€œIf they do Jihad to make commit association with meâ€¦do not obey themâ€ (tmq Surah Luqman 31:15)

In the Shariyah, the word â€˜al-Jihadâ€™ was transferred from the general linguistic meaning to a special confined (restricted) meaning in the Quran and the Sunnah. It is, â€œthe exerting of the effort to fight in the Way of Allah directly or by financial aid, or opinion and the likeâ€ This special meaning of Jihad was given in Medina. In Mecca, the legislation concerning Jihad was not revealed and that is why the subject of Jihad in the Mecci surahs carries the general linguistic meaning. They are the three verses (ayaat) in Surah al-Ainkaboot:

â€œBut if they (either of them) struggle â€˜Jaahadaâ€™ (to force) you to join with Me (in worship) anything of which you have no knowledge, obey them not. You have (all) to return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.â€ (tmq 29:8)

â€œAnd those who strive in Our cause â€˜Jaahaduâ€™- We will certainly guide them to our Paths: For verily Allah is with those who do right.â€ (tmq 29:69)

Also in surah Luqman verse 15, the word Jihad is used in the linguistic context. Regarding the verse in surah Al-Nahl talking about Jihad, it mentioned â€˜al-Hijraâ€™, which means that this is a Madani verse in a Mecci surah (chapter) â€“ and this was mentioned by the al-Mufasiroon. The verse is:

â€œBut verily Your Lord- those who leave their homes after trials and persecutions,- and who thereafter struggle â€˜Jaahaduâ€™ and fight for the faith and patiently persevere,- Your Lord, after all this is oft-forgiving, Most Mercifulâ€. (tmq 16:110)

The subject of Jihad in Medina occurs 26 (twenty-six) times and the majority of them carry the clear meaning of Fighting, â€˜Qitaalâ€™. From these verses are:

â€œNot equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.â€ (tmq 4:95)

It is clear in this verse that al-Jihad is in the meaning of going out to fight and that it is better than staying at home. Also from the verses about Jihad in surah Al-Tawba:

â€œTruly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.â€ (tmq 61:4)

It is clear in the Madani verses that the subject of Jihad is specifically related to fighting and what fighting entails naturally from finance, weapons and the like. Also these verses demonstrate aspects of the conditions that precede the action of fighting and are conditional for its legality i.e. propagating the invitation for non-Muslims to embrace Islam (as this is the original condition for fighting as has been mentioned in â€˜Mughni al-Muhtaj) and/or accept the Islamic authority over them. From the Sunnah of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), Jihad has been mentioned also with this shariyah meaning i.e. fighting and what it entails.

On the authority of Abi Hurayrah, who said: â€œPeople asked, â€œOh Rasoolallah, tell us about an action that is equal to the Jihad fi Sabeel Lillah?â€ Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, â€œYou will not find it bearable.â€ They replied, â€œTell us oh Rasoolallah, maybe we can be able to withstand it.â€ Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, â€œThe example of a mujahid Fi Sabeel Lillah is like the fasting man, the one who stays up at its night and prays and the one who is obedient to the verses of Allah, does not get tired of fasting, nor stops sadaqah until the mujahid returns back to his family.â€

It is clear from the wording of the hadith that the question was about the mujahid with the meaning of the fighter in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) specifically. The answer also indicated the same meaning when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, â€œUntil the mujahid returns back to his familyâ€ i.e. returns back from the fighting. Also by the authority of Jaabir, that the people asked Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam), â€œWhich Jihad is better?â€ He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, â€œThe one in which oneâ€™s horse is wounded and oneâ€™s blood is split in it.â€ On the authority of ibn Abbas, he said that Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, â€œWhen your brothers were killed in the battle of Uhud, Allah put their souls inside green birds that wonder inside Jannah landing on the rivers of Jannah and eats from its fruits. When they see how they spend their time and they look at their food and drink and how great it was, they say, â€˜How we wish that our people know about how Allah rewarded us, so that they may love Jihad and not refrain from it.â€™ So then Allah says to them that, â€˜I will tell you people and your brothers on your behalf.â€™ So they became happy with that news.â€ Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) sent this in surah Al-Imran on the occasion of the Battle of Uhud:

â€œThink not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.â€ (tmq 3:169)

From all of these shariyah texts, it is clear that the Legislator transferred the word Jihad from its general linguistic meaning to a special meaning, which is â€˜al-Qitaalâ€™ (fighting) and whatever is linked to it directly and indirectly, as has been mentioned earlier. Moreover, it relates to the words, which carry the same meaning of al-Jihad like war. From this we can see that the shariyah texts defined Jihad as fighting (qitaal) in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) and this can be found in the books of fiqh, which dealt with the shariyah meaning of Jihad and laws related to it.

In Badiâ€™ul Sanaiâ€™ of the Hanafi Mazhab, it states the following: â€œJihad in the language is exerting effort. In the understanding of the Shara, it is exerting effort and energy in fighting fi sabeel lillah by nafs, finance, tongue or another.â€

In Manhul Jaleel of the Maliki Mazhab, al-Jihad is defined as the, â€œfighting by a Muslim against a kaafir (who does not have a treaty with the Muslims) to make the word of Allah the highestâ€¦. or for a Muslim to arrive to do Jihad or to enter the Kaafirâ€™s land for fighting.â€ Ibn Arafa defined this.

According to the Shafi Mazhab in Al-Iqna, Jihad is fighting â€˜Fi Sabeel Lillahâ€™. Al-Shirazi in Al-Muhazab said that Jihad is â€˜qitaalâ€™.

In Al-Mughni according to the Hanbali Mazhab, Ibn Qudama did not give any other definition. In the section â€˜kitab ul-Jihadâ€™ whatever is related to war, whether it was fard ul-kifaya (collective obligation) or fard ul-ayn (individual obligation) or whether it was in the form of guarding the believers from the enemy and the guards â€˜ribatâ€™ at the borders, all of this is connected to Jihad. He also said, â€œIf the enemy arrives, Jihad becomes fard ul-ayn on the murabitoon (border guards). If it becomes evident that the enemy arrived, then they do not leave to meet them except by an order of the Ameer, since the Ameer is the one who has the authority for issuing orders in the matters of war.â€

So it is clear that the meaning of Jihad was transferred from the linguistic to the shariyah meaning, such that it was understood to mean fighting and nothing else. Such purity and clarity over its meaning today is clearly vague, from what is heard from the lips of rulers over the Islamic lands and even amongst the Muslim ummah itself, as a result of the dominance and pollution of western political thought and reeling from a defeatist mentality that seeks to be apologetic.

So what emerged and dominated the opinion were those who sincerely but incorrectly took Jihad as the rule for all matters whilst others reduced Jihad as a matter connected to defending the â€˜nafsâ€™ and identity i.e. defensive fighting as opposed to offensive fighting. Others went further to say that Jihad is of the â€˜nafsâ€™ and overcoming desires only, calling it the â€˜Great Jihadâ€™, further saying that it is better than the small Jihad which is â€˜qitaalâ€™ (fighting). Such are those that have become lazy and feeble, with their hearts filled with the fear of the enemy.

So the protection of the Deen, hatred of the Kuffar and the love of Jihad has become replaced with the protection of the nation-state (nationalism), pleasing the colonialists and the love of excessive material gain. Since these incorrect concepts have become common between Muslims and the clear definition of Jihad is absent from the minds, the incentive and love to do Jihad, for many, has died (though the increased hostility and aggression of the western nations in the Islamic lands has served to re-kindle the correct desire).

It is, therefore, naturally important to clarify this matter such that the Muslims are able to refute the erroneous misunderstandings that exist, refute false claims and rekindle the love of Jihad.

Greater/Smaller Jihad

Firstly, the common understanding of Muslims is that Jihad is divided into two sections: Jihad ul-Akbar (the â€˜Greater Jihadâ€™), which is connected to Jihad ul-Nafs i.e. fighting the inner desires and shaiytan etcâ€¦ Jihad ul-Asghar (the â€˜Smaller Jihadâ€™), which is fighting the kaafir enemy in battles and what is related to it.

Of the evidences that are quoted from the Islamic texts, the main one is the hadith, where Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: â€œWe have arrived from the small Jihad to the great Jihadâ€. So they asked, â€œWhat is the great Jihad?â€ He (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) replied, â€œIt is Jihad ul-Nafs (against the inner self).â€

In another narration, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) referred to the â€œâ€¦Jihad of the slave against his desires.â€

Though it is correct that there is a Jihad against the nafs, like against shaiytan, however, it is not greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) from the physical Jihad against the Kuffar and it (Jihad ul-Nafs) does not cancel nor invalidate it.

This Jihad against the Kaafir enemies is continuous until the Day of Judgment as is the Jihad against the nafs also continuous until the Day of Judgement. But one should know that the evidences of doing Jihad against the nafs are different to the evidences of Jihad against the Kuffar.

Each has a situation different from the other (context) and it is not permitted to mix the two or to use the evidence of one for the other or to change one in place of the other. Rather there is a need for each, but in its correct context and each of them is a responsibility when put in their correct contexts.

This is why saying that â€˜Jihad ul-nafsâ€™ is better and greater in the sight of Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) is both very dangerous and an outright mistake, which contradicts the understanding of Jihad in the Way of Allah.

It is invalid from many angles:

1. Jihad has two meanings as mentioned previously, a linguistic and a shariyah meaning. Jihad of the nafs comes under the linguistic meaning and not the shariyah meaning.

2. The evidences used to say that Jihad ul-nafs is greater than Jihad against the Kuffar cannot be used to prove this and this is clear from the reality of the evidences that are used. This is because,

a. The hadith is â€˜mardood riwayatanâ€™

b. The hadith is â€˜mardood dirayatanâ€™

With regards to its invalidation from narration that is because the hadith is weak â€˜Daâ€™eefâ€™ as is clarified in Al-Ajmi Al-Saghir by Imam Suyuti. As for its invalidation by meaning that is because it is contradicting definite text, which makes Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah obligatory and makes it the greatest of action.

This can be seen from three aspects:

a. The verses that mention the value of the Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and that it is from the best actions like the verse:

â€œNot equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). To all (in Faith) has Allah promised good. But those who strive and fight has He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.â€ (tmq 4:95)

b. The verses that praise Jihad and the Mujahideen Fi Sabeel Lillah like the verse,

â€œAllah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.â€ (tmq 9:111)

c. The verses that condemn and promises punishment to those who do not participate in Jihad, the ones left behind and the lazy neglectful ones,

â€œO you who believe! What is the matter with you, that, when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.â€ (tmq 9:38)

In addition to this are the sayings of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) that the best action to Allah is Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah and the fighting (qitaal) against the Kuffar: From the many narrations, Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, â€Taking a journey in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.â€

â€œThose who guard (the borders) for one day in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) is better than the duniya and what is in it.â€ â€If anyone takes a position in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah) it is better than his prayer â€˜salahâ€™ in his house for 70 years. Donâ€™t you want Allah to forgive you your sins and enter you in the Jannah? Invade, in the Way of Allah (Fi Sabeel Lillah).â€

Therefore what has been mentioned in the text shows clearly that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is one of the best actions and of the highest degree, which is clearly shown by the shariyah indicators, â€˜Qarainâ€™, that connect praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to expose the fact that Jihad Fi Sabeel Lillah is greater and better than Jihad against the nafs. This is why the hadith is invalid in meaning â€˜dirayatanâ€™ because it contradicts the definite texts and therefore it is invalid â€˜baatilâ€™ to use as an evidence (i.e. to show that Jihad ul-nafs is a greater action).

Is Jihad defensive only?

As for the opinion that Jihad in Islam is defensive and not offensive by using the evidence (and similar evidences):

â€œFight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.â€ (tmq 2:190)

This is also incorrect and invalid for its application upon this matter is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. The evidences of Jihad are general â€˜mutlaqâ€™ evidences and include all offensive and defensive actions e.g. waging war to pre-empt an attack, to protect the borders, killing on the battlefield. To restrict or specify the evidences only to defensive and not offensive Jihad, requires a textual evidence to show that the Jihad is restricted to defensive Jihad only. And there is no such text in the Quran or the Sunnah that restricts or specifies this. Therefore, the evidences regarding Jihad remain general and to be used for all types of war and all types of fighting with the enemy. So it is invalid (baatil) to use the verse,

â€œBut if the enemy incline towards peace, do youâ€¦â€ (tmq 8:61), to show that Jihad is only defensive.

That is also the case with the rest of the evidences that are used by proponents of this erroneous understanding. This and similar verses cannot be used to specify or restrict the generality of the verses in surah al-Tawba because they were the last verses revealed regarding Jihad and what came prior to these verses regarding Jihad does not specify the verses which were revealed after them or came afterwards. And the verse does not restrict the latter revealed verses either. There has to be a text present to restrict or specify the general verse and they also must be revealed after the initial, which are general or mutlaq or even they (i.e. those verses which are restricted or specific) should be mentioned together with the general verses so that the two situations can be shown (i.e. to show the different situations upon which they apply). So Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says: ÙˆÙŽØ¥ÙÙ† Ø¬ÙŽÙ†ÙŽØ­ÙÙˆØ§Ù’ Ù„ÙÙ„Ø³ÙŽÙ‘Ù„Ù’Ù…Ù , which is regarding the time of the peace. And He (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) says,

â€œFight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subduedâ€, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.

So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.

2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (daâ€™wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,

â€œI have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, â€˜there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messengerâ€™ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.â€

As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive â€“ as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh.

Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Taâ€™if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk â€“ all of these are evidences to show that Jihad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihad is defensive.

3. From Ijma as-Sahabah, it is clear that Jihad is fighting Fi Sabeel Lillah to carry Islam and that it is offensive. The evidence, which is sufficient to explain this, is the opening of Iraq, Persia, Sham, Egypt and North Africa. They were all opened at the time of the Sahabah with their Ijmaâ€™ (consensus). Therefore, all what we mentioned are sufficient evidences to refute the claim that Jihad is defensive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Muslims should gain the confidence to present the reality of Jihad to our ummah and raise the level of thinking on this issue such that the Muslims become clearer about its meaning, obligation, gain an increased love for it and importantly, understand the contexts in which it exists and is applied.

The Islamic Ummah, served with the responsibility to present and guard Islam should not allow the rulers over the Islamic lands to pollute the meaning of Jihad and remove its love from the hearts of the believers. Indeed, the Islamic Ummah should not allow these rulers to commit the greater crime to rule over her by other than Islam and dilute the purity of the whole of Islam with their shamelessness, implementation of kufr and humiliating subservience to a part of the creation i.e. their colonial masters, instead of their subservience to the Creator and Master of all that is seen and unseen, Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala).

As for the interaction with the non-Muslims, it is important that the Muslims have the clarity and strength to tackle the malicious, incorrect and hateful propaganda that is focussed on Jihad that is presented as barbaric against peaceful people with the objective to force them to embrace Islam by compulsion and the sword.

The Islamic ummah should tackle this from two perspectives.

Firstly, the Muslims should expose the violent, barbaric and inhumane foreign policy of the â€˜civilisedâ€™ colonial powers that have destroyed nations, states and people; left millions to starve for the sake of securing capitalist interests, appointed and protected oppressive regimes that suppress the will of their people; plundered resources of the lesser developed and invade lands with brute force, terrorising the local civilian people with indiscriminate policies of killing, imprisonment, rape, â€˜carpet bombingâ€™; razing whole villages and towns into the ground; and forcing the people to adopt their life-styles, values and political structures. What right do such people have after witnessing the implementation of such a wicked and brutal foreign policy with their own eyes â€“ in South America, Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq, from the various credible news sources â€“ to even begin laying a criticism against Jihad.

Non-Muslims need to see the reality of their own governments and not be blinded the hysterical and deceitful propaganda that increasingly is aimed at Islam and its values.

Secondly, Muslims should demonstrate some of the rules that surround Jihad and state that offensively carrying the struggle against non-Islam does not permit Muslims to compel the local people to embrace Islam. This is because Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala) does not allow compulsion:

Ù„Ø§ÙŽ Ø¥ÙÙƒÙ’Ø±ÙŽØ§Ù‡ÙŽ ÙÙÙŠ Ø§Ù„Ø¯ÙÙ‘ÙŠÙ†Ù

"There is no compulsion in deen" (tmq 2:256)

Likewise Islam does not allow the exploitation, plundering, razing and desecration of places of worship, peopleâ€™s homes and honour â€“ when Jihad is carried offensively. Rather Jihad is carried offensively to cleanse the earth from the kufr, with the implementation of Islam as a system thus liberating man from the rule of man. The history of the Islamic conquests, the presence of Christians and Jews, who lived in security and prosperity under the Islamic State and the safe-haven that the Islamic authority provided for people savaged by the forefathers of the modern colonialists is sufficient proof for this.

On the horizon, as the struggle between Iman and kufr increases day by day â€“ it is imperative for the Muslims to hold to the truth of Islam, its rules and not permit the dilution of its intellectual wealth â€“ a wealth which soon will transform the darkness of colonial rule to the mercy and shade of the Islamic authority, Al-Khilafah, by Allah (Subhanna Wa Ta'ala's) permission.

The last part of this, Ahmedzay's rant against "Zionist Jews," not reproduced below, was reported yesterday. This report is extraordinary for the fact that it shows Ahmedzay quoting Qur'an 9:111 to justify suicide bombing. This is a common tactic of suicide bombing recruiters, but to point it out in teh West usually brings one a charge of "Islamophobia." I guess Ahmedzay must be an "Islamophobe." "Zarein Ahmedzay's statement when he pleaded guilty to terrorist charges," from the New York Post, April 23 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
"Your Honor, I would like to quote from the Qur'an." "Quote, Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their wealth for the price of Paradise, to fight in the way of Allah, to kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on the truth in the Torah, the Gospel and the Qur'an, end of quote.
That's Qur'an 9:111, the justification for suicide attacks. The only guarantee of Paradise in the Qur'an is this verse, which guarantees it to those who kill and are killed for Allah.

This once again underscores the jihadist contention that they represent Islamic authenticity -- a charge never yet refuted by Muslim "moderates" in any way that has proven effective to change jihadists' minds.

A conference at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) on April 16, 2010, offered â€œCritical Perspectives on the Criminalization of Islamic Philanthropy in the War on Terror.â€ Co-sponsored by the UCLA International Institute, the Critical Race Studies Program, and the UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Lawâ€”and including speakers from UCLAâ€™s Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES)â€”the conference proffered the usual apologist fare.

It was also an echo chamber. Of the approximately 30 people in attendance, 20 of them were academics. Several students showed up, in addition to the usual assortment of aging leftist revolutionaries.

The thrust of the conference was simple: The war on terror has led to a crackdown on Muslim charities, which has had a chilling effect on Muslims by rendering them unable to engage in Zakat (charity), one of the five pillars of Islam.

Unmentioned throughout this eight-hour infomercial was that the majority of the charities that have been investigated for financially aiding terrorism were found guilty and that decent Muslims are capable of giving to charities that do not foment bombings and beheadings.

Asli Bali, acting professor of law at UCLA, organized the conference and acted as one of the principal moderators. She responded to challenging questions from the audience by stating: â€œWe will take three questions from presenters; others will have to wait.â€

Jennifer Turner of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Human Rights Program was the speaker over whom everybody seemed to be fawning. Her presentation was titled, â€œBlocking Faith, Freezing Charity,â€ and, in typical ACLU fashion, she made excuses for Islamistsâ€™ bad behavior while bashing America.

She began by stating: â€œIâ€™m not a social scientist. I am not here to offer any statistical analysisâ€â€”a fig leaf she employed to make wildly unsubstantiated claims, as when she announced that â€œthe conviction in the Holy Land Foundation case was based on faulty evidence.â€ She didnâ€™t bother to elaborate.

It turned out her â€œresearchâ€ that had the entire room in a swoon consisted of the following:
I did 120 interviews with American Muslims in Michigan and Texas. People reported that they were unable to give Zakat. Some had stopped giving entirely. Some felt fear of deportation or denial of citizenship.
Turner excused her extremely small sample size with more platitudes about not being a statistician. She insisted that she did not ask leading questions, although the process was clearly an exercise in promoting victimhood. She did not verify the accuracy of her respondents or analyze any tax returns. In short, she relied on her own biased views to justify a predetermined conclusion.

University of Michigan, Dearborn, history professor Sally Howell actually found oppression in increased giving. As she put it:
Since 2001, there have been 14 new mosques, and 17 mosques have doubled in size. This is proof that people are not donating overseas.
Howell followed this with more bizarre commentary:

â€œThe Arab charity LIFE [Life for Relief and Development] had their board resign one year after Israel invaded Lebanon.â€
Foiled again!

â€œAs a result of restrictive policiesâ€ a board member of another charity, according to Howell, â€œembezzled $10,000.â€

Yes: and as a result of inconvenient and restrictive securities laws, Bernie Madoff was forced to steal. It was all Americaâ€™s fault.

â€œDoes government get to decide what is good Islam and what is bad Islam?,â€ she asked.

In two columns in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, titled "What's Happening in the Girls' Schools?" and "Who Will Sound the Warning Bell in the Girls Schools?" Halima Muzaffar criticizes the Saudi education system for using scare tactics and for instilling in young children the fear of death, as part of their religious education. She claims that this "culture of death" is the reason for the spread of terrorism in Saudi society.

This is not the first time Saudis have protested against the school system. A MEMRI Special Dispatch from 2004 looks at criticism in Saudi Arabia regarding the intensive focus on death in Saudi schools, with columnists, university lecturers, and parents discussing the emotional damage suffered by schoolchildren as a result of this focus and calling on the Saudi Education Ministry to put a stop to it. [1]

The following are excerpts from the two columns by Ms. Muzaffar:

"Girls' Schools... Are Inculcating Extremism [in Pupils]"

"It appears that, for some teachers, [employing techniques based on] sterile drilling and destroying the girls' talents are not enough... They are also trying to destroy their souls through fear. These teachers are spreading 'the culture of death' without any supervision or control. Perhaps, in their ignorance, they are trying [in this way] to imbue their lessons with a moral [message]... and perhaps they are [only] doing this so they can put down 'religious activity' in their personal files... in the hope of receiving special commendation [from the administration].

"[But] whether inadvertendly or intentionally, the girls' schools are inculcating extremism [in the pupils]. Extremist women teachers with a pessimistic outlook on life are using scare tactics [in educating the children]. The Ministry of Education and Culture must not ignore this.

"Why can't religious guidance be administered without resorting to the discourse of fear? Why is the Ministry of Education and Culture ignoring these ideological attempts to transform our girls into lifeless and sickly creatures, and into future mothers who will be easily manipulated by a terrorist father, brother, or husband - because [in their early school years] they were polluted by [ideas] of terror, death, and rejection of this world?

"A woman I know noticed that her eight-year-old daughter was distressed: She suddenly began wetting her bed at night, and suffered from nightmares that made her cry. This was caused by stories told by one of her teachers, about the tortures of the grave and the hammer-wielding angels of destruction called Munkar and Nakir [2]... [and] about the Angel of Death who does not rest until he has taken the souls that he is commanded to take, and about the agonies of dying suffered by those who were slack in their observance of the religious commandments. All these [stories] were aimed at encouraging the girls to pray. [But] this teacher, and others like her, forgot that the best way to encourage innocent girls and prompt them to do things is to instill in them the love of Allah, of His Paradise, and of His mercy.

"As one of the older generation, I still remember how schools would bring [into the classroom] women whose job it was to wash the bodies of the dead, wrap them in shrouds, and weep over them, causing our little eyes to water in fear... I will never forget how, during the first year of junior high, as part of our religious studies, the [school] administration [brought] one of these body-washers [to speak to us]. She taught us how to wash the body of our mother, sister, or other female relative, in case we had to do this in the future. She [also] told us about the terrible things that happen to the dead, [and stressed that] only those who had devoted themselves entirely to the faith were spared [these horrors]... You can imagine how [the girls] fainted and cried - which, unfortunately, was considered to be to the credit of the woman who frightened us, so that other schools began to compete for her services."

"This 'Culture of Death' is the Main Reason that... Terrorism [Is] Endorsed by Our Society"

"Let me put it plainly: We must realize that this 'culture of death' is the main reason that the ideological terrorism of takfir [accusing others of heresy] and various [other] sorts of terrorism are endorsed by our society. To eradicate this cancer, we must address its roots - namely, the social seclusion of women. [3] [We must reform the upbringing of] the young girls who will later become women, mothers, and educators - for it is they who will shape the next generation. We must stop exploiting their innocence. We have had enough generations of closed[-minded people] who know nothing but death and perdition." [4]

In a follow-up article, titled "Who Will Sound the Warning Bell in the Girls Schools?" Muzaffar wrote that her first article had evoked numerous responses from parents, who agreed with her and added stories of their own. She said:

"A reader named Saleh Al-Salouli told me that one day, his daughter returned [from school] in shock after the teacher had forced them to watch an execution... This story should alert the girls' schools [to the existence of a problem], and make the [Education] Ministry considerably tighten its supervision [over the schools]. For how can they continue to employ a principal who had turned an execution into part of the curriculum for little girls?...

"A reader named Muna related that her 12-year-old daughter has suffered from anxiety and nightmares since she heard [from her teacher] about the tortures of the grave and about the maggots that consume the bodies of the dead... And a reader named Muhammad [wrote] about how surprised he was when his daughter, a fifth-grader, told him that it was forbidden to watch Tom and Jerry on television. Her teacher had decreed so...
"There were [also] responses [too harsh] to report here. But I urge the officials [of the Education Ministry] to read them, for they reflect the views and experience of the readers. [I urge the ministry] to take them seriously, since they show that the girls' schools are trying... to exploit the [young pupils'] innocence in order to disseminate the culture of death and extremism." [5]

[1] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 730, "Educators and Parents Protest Against 'The Culture of Death' Taught In Saudi Schools," June 11, 2004, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP73004.
[2] According to the Islamic faith, Allah sends the destroying angels Munkar and Nakir to question the deceased in the grave regarding his religion and beliefs. If his answers are unsatisfactory, the angels break his bones with their hammer.
[3] The writer plays on the word "seclusion" which also means "veiled." [4] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), January 8, 2008. [5] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), January 15, 2008.

Of course there is always response and retaliation in war. That's what war is. But what Makhdoom Qureshi is trying to do is put the blame on America for Shahzad's jihad attack. The implication of his statement is that if we stop resisting the jihadis, they will stop fighting us. But of course they wouldn't stop, for the Qur'an and Islamic theology and law mandate warfare against unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers, not solely because they are fighting back. "Taliban lackey's twisted mission," by Bruce Golding, John Doyle and Dan Mangan for the New York Post, May 5:
It was payback.

The Connecticut man charged yesterday with the botched Times Square car bombing confessed to trying to slaughter innocent people in retaliation for US drone attacks that wiped out the leadership of his beloved Taliban, The Post has learned.

Admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad -- who copped to training in explosives in the past year with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the leading extremist Islamic group in his native Pakistan -- said he was driven to evil by the slew of deaths among leaders of the terror group, law-enforcement sources revealed yesterday.

His training came in a tribal area where American drone aircraft have pummeled members of the Pakistan Taliban and al Qaeda in the past year.

Sources said he was an eyewitness to the onslaught throughout the eight months he spent in Pakistan beginning last summer.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the Times Square bombing attempt immediately after it occurred, saying it was in response to the drone killing of one of its leaders in August -- but that claim had been roundly discounted by US authorities at the time.

But by yesterday, Pakistani Foreign Minister Makhdoom Qureshi said, "This is a blowback. This is a reaction. This is retaliation. And you could expect that," according to CBS News.

"Let's not be naive. They're going to fight back."...

When grilled by investigators, Shahzad "admitted he had attempted to detonate a bomb in Times Square. He also said he had recently received five months' worth of bomb-making instruction in Waziristan, Pakistan," a criminal complaint says....

Among those arrested in Pakistan was Tauhid Ahmed, with whom Shahzad had been communicating via e-mail and whom he'd met at least once.

Also busted was Muhammad Rehan, who was picked up at a mosque associated with militant activity. Shahzad during his trip to Pakistan had met with Rehan.

Investigators were also looking at possible ties between Shahzad and David Headley, another Pakistani American, who pleaded guilty to the 2008 bombings in Mumbai, India, The Daily Beast Web site reported....

Why the assumption that we have something to prove? Meanwhile, we're expected to take Islam's claims of "tolerance" (which is according to its own definition and standards, not the Western tradition) as an article of politically correct faith. The tasteless positioning of a mosque near Ground Zero is also intended to foist another part of that dogma on New Yorkers -- namely, that Islam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, so a mosque in that location ought to be quite alright, right?

But there are two problems here: 1. Islamic jihad was the motivation behind those attacks, and 2. it is Islam that has a problem with tolerance, as is made clear by its own texts and teachings (one may start with Qur'an 9:29, 98:6), and the abundance of Islamic nations cited as "Countries of Particular Concern" in the annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Lastly, the fact that this project is called the "Cordoba House" adds a certain level of insult to injury. In that vein, someone might ask Imam Rauf about the Hagia Sophia sometime.

"New Yorkers Wary Of Future Ground Zero Mosque," from CBS, May 6:
NEW YORK (CBS) â€• In a building damaged by debris from the Sept. 11 airliners that brought down the World Trade Center and soon to become a 13-story mosque, some see the bridging of a cultural divide and an opportunity to serve a burgeoning, peaceful religious population. Others see a painful reminder of the religious extremism that killed their loved ones.
Anything having to do with that day, that place, carries enormous meaning. Now two Islamic organizations have partnered to build something that they say will bring some good from something very bad.
Organizers say the project will create a venue for mainstream Islam and a counterbalance to radicalism. It earned a key endorsement this week from influential community leaders.
"This is a community center, a community and cultural center, which would include certainly prayer space for Muslims and we hope for non-Muslims as well, to bring about a new discourse in the relationship between the United States, New York City, and the Muslim world," said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative.
He's hoping the 13-story, $100 million Islamic center will join the other buildings; the banks, offices, and apartments, going up at ground zero. It will serve a growing Muslim population in lower Manhattan.
The closest mosque to this area is a dozen blocks away and very over-crowded, but this site was also chosen for exactly what happened here on 9/11, and what America stands for, Rauf told CBS station WCBS-TV in New York City.
"Definitely, this is a victory of American tolerance over hatred," Rauf said.
But some 9/11 victims' families say the issue isn't tolerance.
It's sensitivity.
"I don't like it," said Evelyn Pettigano, who lost a sister in the attacks, during a phone interview on Thursday. "I'm not prejudiced. ... It's too close to the area where our family members were murdered."
"I lost my brother, Sean. He was a fireman," Rosaleen Tallon said.
"As an American I am so proud of our freedom of religion, but I also think we have to be historically sensitive to what happened in that area," Tallon said.
Tallon wants to teach her son, Paddy, to be tolerant of other religions. But she wonders if other religions, like Islam, are teaching their children to be tolerant of hers. There are other places in the city, she said, for another mosque."I don't think that they would build a German cultural center right near Auschwitz. Just because you're looking at what happened to the people that died there. That's all that should be focused on," Tallon said.
The organizations publicly unveiled the preliminary plan for the project, known as the Cordoba House, on Wednesday at a meeting of the finance committee of the local community board, which is composed of influential stakeholders in lower Manhattan. While the agency has no authority over what can be developed at the site, their support is viewed as key to gaining acceptance from residents....

Itâ€™s an appalling and sickening story, but itâ€™s also an indicator of great desperation on Al Qaedaâ€™s part: Al Qaeda use two â€˜Downâ€™s syndromeâ€™ women to blow up 73 people in Baghdad markets.
Two women who reportedly had Downâ€™s syndrome may have been unwilling suicide bombers in twin blasts that killed up to 73 people at pet markets in Baghdad today.

A female bomber killed 45 people at a packed pet market in Baghdad this, police said, in the deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital in six months.

A separate bombing shortly after killed 20 people and wounded scores at a bird market in southern Baghdad, police said. The death toll from the two bombings increased throughout the day to at least 73.

The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brigadier General Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers apparently had Downâ€™s syndrome and the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating the women may not have been willing attackers, according to his office.

Another case of brave Islamic jihad warriors killing in the name of Allah other Muslims!

A 15-year-old girl from Pakistan was forced into prostitution in the U.K. by her mother-in-law, The Sunday Times of London reported.

The teen, whose name was not disclosed, arrived in the U.K. expecting to be married to a handsome and successful older man, the paper reported. Instead, she was married to a 40-year-old, unemployed, disabled man with the mental age of a 5-year-old.

The marriage was reportedly not recognized by the British Home Office, but was considered valid under sharia â€” or Islamic â€” law.

As if that weren't bad enough, the girl's mother-in-law then decided to take advantage of the teen's youth and good looks by offered her to men looking for sex, The Sunday Times reported.

According to the paper, the family "invited" men to rape her.
The girl eventually escaped her husband's family's home and is now living in a shelter.

Her story is just one of hundreds of cases of abuse highlighted in a recent government report by the U.K.'s Center for Social Cohesion which looks at the growing trend within the Islamic and Asian communities in the U.K.

In Human Events today I discuss the MSA's non-condemnation of the Muslim UCSD student's endorsement of genocide:
A Muslim student at the University of California at San Diego last week endorsed a new genocide of Jews. Although one can only imagine the media hue and cry had a conservative student said this, the liberal media has not found Jumanah Imad Albahri's statement fit to print. However, the UC-San Diego chapter of the Muslim Student Association did feel it necessary to issue a "clarification," which only muddied the waters further and raised questions about the prevalence of Islamic anti-Semitism and supremacism among Muslims in the United States.

It all started when the veteran conservative activist David Horowitz, during the question-and-answer period after his talk at the university, asked Albahri: "The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn't have to hunt us down globally. For or against it?" Albahri answered with a straightforward endorsement of genocide: "For it."

The Muslim Student Association is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Islamic organization that is dedicated (in its own words as recorded in a captured internal document) to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." And so it is perhaps not surprising that the MSA's press release in the wake of Albahri's remark reeks of disingenuousness and damage control, but doesn't get around to condemning Hamas and Hezbollah (as Horowitz had asked Albahri to do), or even to condemning Albahri's endorsement of genocide.

But the USCD MSA did manage to condemn "all groups or organizations, whether state or non-state actors, who target civilians or target a civilian population to impose collective punishment." Was it condemning attacks like September 11, or the July 7, 2005 bombings in London? Not necessarily.

Jihadists have said that "there are no civilians in Israel." Thus a genocide of Jews there would not, according to this twisted logic, constitute the targeting of a civilian population. And it did seem as if the MSA had Israel in mind, since after explaining how the Koran forbade killing anyone "unjustly," the MSA statement added: "It is for this very reason that MSA has organized events such as our annual Justice in Palestine Week."

That sentence makes it clear that the MSA meant in its statement to condemn alleged Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. They were not condemning Hamas or Hezbollah, any more than did Jumanah Albahri....

"It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law."

An extraordinarily important point.

Wafa Sultan writes in Hudson NY today about the 9/11 mosque:
A new mosque is now being planned in New York near "Ground Zero," two blocks from where the World Trade Center used to be. This mosque is headed by an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of the Cordoba Initiative, who proposes to convert the now-shuttered Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place into an Islamic Cultural Center which would contain a mosque.
It is crucial to study the supremacist ideology of Islam and to recognize, for example, that the building of a mosque especially at Ground Zero is viewed by Muslims as a decisive victory over the infidels in Islam's march to establish its ultimate goal: the submission of all others to Islam and to Sharia Law.

On a daily bases, in so many parts of the world, deadly attacks are perpetrated by Jihadists either against non Muslims or, frequently, against Muslims -- especially Muslim women. The terror type of Jihad, however, is only one way for Islamists to accomplish their mission of making the "Kafir," or infidels, submit to Sharia Law. Another method is, as the author Robert Spencer calls it, an insidious, creeping "Stealth Jihad."

While Mr. Shahzad is the impatient Jihadist who attempts to destroy the West through terror, there is also the second type of Jihadist, who is much more patient, and who employs the "Stealth Jihad." The Stealth Jihadis are subtle in their approach and take their time to accomplish the same objective of submitting us all under Islam and under Sharia Law.

Recently, two separate episodes highlight this gloomy reality. The first is the attempted bombing of Times Square by the Pakistani terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, called by Leon de Winter "The Foreclosure Terrorist" from an anchor at CNN who said, "It can be confirmed that his house has been foreclosed in recent years. I mean, one would have to imagine, that brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."

To someone who grew up in a Muslim country, as I did, this can only be seen as ludicrous. Perhaps there should be a formal Fatwa, or religious edict called the "Foreclosure Jihad." No doubt, those at Al Azhar University in Cairo - the epicenter of Islamic jurisprudence -- might like this idea: It is an effective way to conceal the true narrative of Islam....

Sharia Law must me made legal in usa /europe as they ve vast numbers of muslims.If not it will be be like trampling upon the fundamental right to practice religion of the muslim citizens of these countries.

Sharia Law must me made legal in usa /europe as they ve vast numbers of muslims.If not it will be be like trampling upon the fundamental right to practice religion of the muslim citizens of these countries.